You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Oral Science, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2334/josnusd.17-0444 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yoshimasa Takeuchi, Hiroyasu Koizumi, Mika Furuchi, Yohei Sato, Chikahiro Ohkubo, Hideo Matsumura |
| Abstract |
Accurate impressions are essential in fabri-cating dental restorations and fixed dental prostheses. During the last decade, digital impression systems have improved substantially. This review discusses the accuracy of digital impression systems for fabrication of dental restorations and fixed dental prostheses. A literature search in PubMed was performed for the period from July 2010 through June 2017. The search keywords were Cerec, digital impression, direct digitalization, indirect digitalization, and intraoral scanner. Only relevant studies are summarized and discussed in this review. In general, the latest systems have considerably reduced the time required for impression making, and the accuracy and marginal fit of digital impression systems have recently improved. Restorations and fixed dental prostheses fabricated with currently available digital impression systems and intraoral scanners exhibit clinically acceptable ranges of marginal gap in both direct and indirect procedures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 241 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 6% |
| Professor | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 12% |
| Unknown | 124 | 51% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 96 | 40% |
| Engineering | 3 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | <1% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 2% |
| Unknown | 129 | 54% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,601,965
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Science
#163
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,609
of 442,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Science
#13
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.